Andy with last years magnificent Ships of the Line Calendar page
Ok, I’m a fan. I genuflect to this artist. I’ve referred to him as “Fountainhead” in past blogs, and if I’ve ever known anyone who might be Howard Roark, it’s him.
His influence on the look of Star Trek after TNG was so powerful that it dominated the shows design ethic for decades to come, even though he was only there for the first season.
He is highly opinionated, and outspoken, sometimes to his own detriment. This has earned him a reputation as a maverick. Some find him infuriating. All find him brilliant.
Just yesterday, a gang of us were chatting back and forth via E-mail about Star Trek design. My favorite part of the debate was between David Merriman, and Andy -
David – Seriously. What practical demonstrations in the ST universe of transportation systems do we have analogs of here, in our real-world?
Andy – The Enterprise is an analog of today’s Naval aircraft carriers, it’s shuttlecraft are analogs of helicopters or fixed-wing transports.
David – There’s nothing to meld between the two. Techno-babble does not an Engineer make.
Andy – Techno-babble is merely a place-holder for systems & technologies yet to be developed. Is the name Space SHUTTLE a mere coincidence? Star Trek Shuttlecraft preceded it by many years.
David – No, ST is not a reasonable extension of what is known today.
Andy – The most enthusiastic visitors to the Next Generation sets I ever escorted were two scientists. When we got to the engineering section, they asked me to take their picture in front of the warp core. After pulling out their lab coats and putting them on, they posed gleefully on either side of the Dilithium Crystal chamber, telling me that they were from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and that they were developing ANTI-MATTER Power Systems at that same time.
David – It’s a designers/artist’s playground — has been from day one. And a vehicle for pumping out re-hashed morality plays.
Andy – Matt Jefferies, If I’m remembering correctly, was a pilot or had knowledge of aircraft and the structural principals employed in their development. He used that background in hypothesizing what a spacecraft 300 years from now might look like, and still be something with which contemporary audiences could identify. He thought about the surface skinning, stating that all operating components be enclosed and maintained from the inside of that skin to reduce the hazards repair parties might encounter.
David – In our universe, if the fire don’t belch out the ass-end of a rocket, that rocket ain’t moving!
Andy – True enough… one of Newton’s laws of physics. And if Impulse Engines don’t emit a shit-load of energy, that Starship ain’t moving either… another analog.
David – Call ST art and I won’t quibble with you. Start mislabeling it as engineering, we got a problem. Sir Clarke would describe what we see in ST as (by our standards) MAGIC!
Andy – I’m thinking that in extremely remote regions of this planet, there may be tribes who create (engineer) their canoes yet they would consider a JetSki as a magic thing. Their description of it would equal their version of Science Fiction.
David – From a technology point of view, there’s no melding between us and ST. Oil and water.
Andy – Maybe you’re confusing Fantasy with Science Fiction.
David – Accepting that ST is fantasy, then all we have left is design to tickle our interest (hello Lord Of The Rings).
Andy – I don’t think anyone feels ST is Fantasy. When i’ve provided designs for ST, it’s been based on extensions of current predictions of future technology. I’m nowhere near being an engineer (my educational background being Industrial Design), but when one considers how far mankind has come since the Wright Brothers,… hot-air balloons to landing on the moon in 66 years, predicting the look of ANYTHING 300 years from now, realistically, is silly. But if I’m asked to provide a design for something that’s that far in the future, for a Hollywood project, I’ll project those vehicles from what we have right now. As I said earlier, an Aircraft Carrier in Space.
David – In the absence of engineering and science (bedfellows) all I ask from ST is some semblance of continuity at least, if I’m to be kept engaged in the story (and many back-stories).
Andy – Finding any two Directors, Producers, or Production Designers that agree to providing continuity between their projects is, unfortunately, impossible. Their egos won’t allow it, and they’ll sacrifice the franchise rather than be a part of something bigger than themselves.
David – And there is very little continuity of design between the many TV and movie productions depicting action in the ST universe.
Andy – Addressing that very issue, I’ve done my best to insure there is a LOT of consciously-designed continuity between TNG and it’s predecessors. Beyond that, you are correct.
David – At the very least, ST could have done the job of insuring that there was a rigid depiction of specific ‘design’ elements along the points up and down the ST universe time-line. They have not.
Andy – When I was involved, that was my main focus, to provide visual continuity, even though TNG took place 85 years after TMP.
David – Curvy lines, aztec panels, and pretty Starfleet Logos thrown about randomly are no substitute for engineering, science, and continuity.
Andy – The Motion Picture Enterprise was to be an advanced version of Kirk’s Television Starship. Aztec paneling was developed as a way to establish the fact that the hull plating was interlocked, providing a stronger skin. that was carried over to the Enterprise-D… another continuity example. No, that paneling wasn’t necessary… Hell, the saucer would probably be cast in two halves rather than welded together, but it was ‘required’ by my Art Director. And in today’s perception of hardware, it does provide a sense of scale… remember this is Hollywood. Curvy lines??? Curved surfaces are inherently stronger than straight. And my Enterprise is made of plastics & ceramics, not steel.
fini
UPDATED POST – 1/26/09
Probert on design philosophy:
My underlying design philosophy is that if I believe it (whatever I design) is real , the audience will too. All my fictitious hardware starts with a basis of reality. Industrial designer / futurist type of guys (if they’re serious) hypothesize future hardware by starting with current hardware upgraded through industry predictions while throwing in a good dose of unexpected technological breakthroughs.
+
Regarding fantastic Trek instrumentality such as transporters, tractor beams, and replicators:
To me they’re simply assumptions based on those “unexpected technological breakthroughs” I was talking about. Fantastic by today’s standards, they are indeed… unless you consider what a description of a flat-screen television would sound like to someone in the 1880’s, when telephones were just an astounding invention still too extravagant for average citizens. The transporter/beam/replicator stuff involves the simple procedure of converting energy to matter; something that is thought to be impossible by today’s standards. It wasn’t too long ago, however, that science established the fact that the human body would fly apart if forced to travel faster than 60 miles per hour… an impossible achievement by the standards of those days.
LOL This was a very fun read. Thanks
As an interesting note to Andy’s thoughts/feelings of Trek producers … it’s interesting to note Andy’s Ent. D is made of plastics and ceramics vs. producers screen named tritanium. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and discussing many Trek concepts not seen in TNG during his tenure. Andy is doggedly specific about his Trek points of view. We are all the richer for his contributions.
Curves? Look at the Eiffel Tower. Lots of curves – ellipses and parabolas. Sure, they’re beautiful, but there are strong mathematical reasons that Gustave Eiffel used them in his amazing design. The curves give the tower much of the strength it needs to remain standing as a proud symbol of human ingenuity.
There are sometimes engineering reasons why curves are more difficult or expensive to build, and that sometimes forces compromises in set designs, but I think that Andy Probert and others who have used elegant curves in their designs on Star Trek are in some pretty distinguished company.
And in quoting the late, great Arthur C. Clarke, it might be wise to recall Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
The Eiffel Tower argument for the curved design of the Enterprise-D et al., and the idea of ceramic-plastic and “duranium/tritanium” alloys combined in the hull’s outer structure? All of that makes sense to me.
It should be noted that Paul Newitt also contributed a number of insightful email rebuttals to Dave Merriman’s questioning of relevant engineering in Star Trek. I think one of the major points that Merriman missed was that even if the science and technology portrayed in Star Trek doesn’t exist today or may not develop tomorrow, there is still an important connection in terms of inspiration for those doing the work today as well as those students who will take their places in academia and industry later. Those of us who worked on the franchise who know a little something about space technology made sure that there was a lot more of it in “modern” Star Trek than there was in TOS, hopefully without bashing people over the head with it. We got a good deal of direct real-world help from scientists and engineers like Robert Forward, Robert Bussard, G. Harry Stine, Greg Benford, and many others. A lot of folks think that the tech language in recent Trek is “technobabble,” and while we didn’t write the worst of it, we did contribute at least a thousand pages of memos that were as clearly thought out as we could make them, and my guess is that 85% of them stuck. As I tell people, it’s only “babble” if it doesn’t make any sense. Filter out the nonsense that we didn’t write, and add in our hardware designs, and I can guarantee that we made our mark on the franchise and on the culture, inspired a lot of folks to go into science and engineering, and we sure as hell elevated people’s standards of what makes for good media science fiction.
The scientists that Andy mentioned were Dr. Steve Howe and one of his colleagues from LANL when they were working there. I’ve known Steve for ages, before I worked on Trek, and he’s one of my main nuclear propulsion idea sources. I actually should have mentioned him in my message above; he’s been one of the best people to talk to about antimatter systems, nuclear thermal rockets (NTR), and the like. The TV viewers might think we’re making this stuff up, but that’s only partly right. We’ve been talking to the smart guys (and gals, no pejorative intended) all along.
Blade Runner had Syd Meade, Star Wars had Ralph McQuarrie, and Trek has Andy Probert. All vitally necessary to what fans often take for granted.
I always loved Andrew Probert’s “curvy” designs for Star Trek. Although they are 20 to 30 years old, they don’t look dated at all. To me they still epitomize the “purest” Trek design philosophy.
Andrew Probert, I think is one of the people who impacted Star Trek the most in a good way, I wish he was doing Star Trek XI, and I soorta wish he would’ve designed the New Enterprise.
I wish no one had designed the new Enterprise.
But honestly, Probert did design the new ship in some way, as it heavily borrows from his movie Enterprise.
Bernd Schneider: “I always loved Andrew Probert’s “curvy” designs for Star Trek. Although they are 20 to 30 years old, they don’t look dated at all. To me they still epitomize the “purest” Trek design philosophy”.
Ditto. Even now, in 2009, I love the lines of the refit Enterprise and the Ent-D. Frankly I find it amazing how such ideas can easily capture the imagination of future generations. Even Jefferies original Enterprise design, while looking a little dated in my opinion, is a beauty.
Star Trek is total fantasy. It’s in the exact same category as Star Wars: space-flavored fantasy. There’s nothing wrong with that, but when artists like Probert start talking about how Star Trek is science fiction with “real world analogs”….well….he’s just wrong.
Maybe at one time ST was a projection into the future of known science. The concepts in TOS were, however tenuously based in actual ideas scientists were kicking around. Relativity implied space itself was malleable, so FTL Warp-Drive made sense. LASERS came out in the 60’s, so phasers were a good idea, computers had been around for a while, so the Enterprise had a talking computer. The communicator was an advanced walkee-talkee, and so forth.
(Note: I do not put the Transporter in the above category of “sensible speculative technology” because it simply isn’t. The only reason the Transporter is part of ST is because they couldn’t afford the expense of the special effects required to make the ship land every week, so they came up with the transporter and used E=MC^2 to explain it after the fact. Yes, matter and energy be transformed, but compared to the above techs, the transporter is far from reasonable or believable.)
There was, as Probert asserts, real rationale behind the design of the original Enterprise, and those original ideas still make good sense. It had a modular design, so any of the components could be swapped out, the power plant was housed in an entirely different hull than the “habitation module”. The bridge was well thought-out too. It was circular, so the captain could immediately see any of the consoles or displays with a swivel of his chair. The consoles were all ergonomic, too. All of these (except the transporter!) were good ideas. Good ideas allow for an easier slide into a state of suspension of disbelief (at least for me), which helps make for more compelling stories.
Alas, by the time of TNG, guys like Probert had apparently stopped paying attention to (or maybe were never aware of) the Good Ideas behind the original designs, and ST has continued to make less and less sense.
For one, (and this one is difficult for me to explain but I’ll try), there’s a big difference between a fictional technology based on real science (like in TOS), and a fictional technology based on a previous fictional technology which was based on real science. There’s too many “degrees of separation” between the fictional techs of TNG and the real science. Example: The Holodeck, or Magic Vending Machines…I mean “replicators”. Both of those things are speculative extrapolations based on the Transporter technology from TOS. The reasoning behind the Holodeck is something like “What if we combine force-fields, the Transporter, and super-futuristic holograms together!”. The ideas upon which later Trek built their designs and fictional technology were no longer based in real science, but on fictional technologies. This is where something ceases to be well-thought out science fiction and becomes fantasy. The technobabble doesn’t make it science fiction. The Fantastic Four comics of the ’60’s had all kinds of pseudo-scientific words thrown around, but it was definitely fantasy, because it wasn’t directly based on any real ideas – Stan Lee just threw science-sounding words around for the sake of flavor, which is exactly what Star Trek does now. It’s a space-flavored fantasy, not science fiction. The holodeck & the replicator are just 2 examples of this, but there’s lots more I’ve noticed.
Nah, Probert has good taste in terms of what looks good, but that’s where his talents end.
So what am I being blamed for, the invention of Holodecks, Replicators, Transporters? I can’t see what you’re upset about. I didn’t write the scripts nor conjure the technology.
As Mike Okuda brought to our attention (above), one of Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws of prediction states that: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Everything Rick, Mike, or I created was based on each week’s script (not our own hypotheses). Consequently, in order to keep the series on a level understandable by average viewers, the designs always started with something from our current technology level becoming, as it were, an analog of today’s hardware. The Enterprise is indeed an analog of today’s Aircraft Carriers… or as Mister Dictionary puts it:
ANALOG:
A person or thing seen as being comparable to another.
As long as we’re there let’s look up a couple of other terms:
SCIENCE FICTION:
Fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets.
FANTASY:
The faculty or activity of imagining things, esp. things that are impossible or improbable. A genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure, esp. in a setting other than the real world.
All advanced Industrial Design predictions must assume there will be unexpected technological breakthroughs. For instance, who, thirty years ago would have predicted the use of today’s cell phones? They would have been laughed off as something ‘out of Star Trek’.
Andrew-
nephronial: I don’t think that Andy Probert or anyone else working in the art department ever pretended to have invented something or to have laid the foundation for a real starship. Actually, you seem to confuse a few things anyway, as the writers and producers conceive the basics of a fictional technology, and they don’t give this privilge away (just read in Doug’s new post about NX-01). The art department “only” has to visualize it somehow, and if they are lucky they are asked well in advance if and how they could accomplish it. They have to make it look recognizable, reasonable and appealing, with a limited budget and limited time.
If you apply the rules for “hard science fiction” to Star Trek, it will definitely lose anyway, and I can understand that you don’t enjoy it. Just like every other half way popular show or book series would fail the test. And by frequently referring to your pet peeve, the transporter as an admittedly very implausible technology, you don’t make a point either. It doesn’t invalidate the rest, the rest that is well-conceived and that makes sense from the early days of TOS until today.
And what you totally neglect is the great potential that lies in the technology that you think is unrealistic. What would Star Trek be without the holodeck? It would be lame.
I only agree that the amount of technobabble should have been reduced significantly. Because it doesn’t make more sense just because it is made incomprehensible. But this is yet another thing that Andrew Probert is simply not to blame for.
I think Andy is being way too modest, and I might gently suggest that others are being too rigid in their thinking. Without taking anything away from our writers and producers, Andy’s concepts have, indeed stretched the creative decisions of those writers and producers, and Star Trek is the better for it. In fact, Andy, Rick, Doug, John, Jim, Ricardo, Herman, Louise, Richard, Matt, and all of Star Trek’s designers have made valuable contributions to the richness and credibility of Star Trek’s universe.
Certainly, Star Trek is not, and has never pretended to be, an engineering textbook. The show extrapolated known technologies, and took liberties with real science in the name of storytelling. Some of these worked well, and others did not. Such is the nature of any enterprise in which a large number of people are involved over a large number of years. The fact that Star Trek has pushed the envelope of extrapolation so much is not a weakness, but a strength, for it is a large part of what has engaged our imaginations and opened our minds to future possibilities.
Of course, the dividing line between a logical extrapolation and something that lacks credibility is fuzzy at best. That line varies widely with who you ask, and it moves a lot over the years as science itself changes (See Clarke). Even more importantly, that line depends on our skill as filmmakers and storytellers. To the extent that many viewers are willing to (however briefly) suspend their disbelief (even of things that violate known theories), we have succeeded. To the extent that other are not, we have not. Such is life. We sleep well at night, knowing that we have done our best to honor Gene Roddenberry’s respect for real science and engineering.
I know a lot of real engineers and rocket scientist who are perfectly willing to enjoy Star Trek at face value, knowing full well many of the liberties that the show has taken with real science and engineering.
-Mike
Trek tech has never been about absolute realism, nerd OCD notwithstanding. It’s about verisimilitude in the service of good storytelling.
I’ve always been very happy with how Mssrs. Okuda, Probert, Sternbach, and Drexler have perpetrated this for us.
I am in awe of the names attached to the posts on this board. Mr. Probert, I just want to say this:
THANK YOU! TYTYTYTYTYTYTYTY!
You’ve given us two of the most beautiful ships in Trek: The movie Enterprise, and the Enterprise-C (which was based on your rather curvier original rendering).
As a warship, the movie Enterprise does not cut the mustard; far to many vulnerabilities for an enemy to exploit. As a “starship”, an embodiment of Humanity’s dreams and goals, you succeeded beyond all imagining. You took Matt Jeffries pretty, classically simplistic design and made her into a “real” ship. She has been described in many novels as a swan, and I think it only too apt, with her long neck and spread wings. She’s perfectly in proportion too; something many later Trek ships suffered the lack of.
Oh, and Trek is definitely sci-fi. To the critisicms of extrapolating on sci-fi to create fantasy: How could you push the same universe chronologically a century ahead of itself *without* doing so? You certainly cannot extrapolate 400 years from 2006 and come up with “proper” Treknology. When 1960s Trek imagined a manned Earth-Saturn probe by the early 21st century yet couldn’t conceive of touch screen interfaces 20 years beyond their own show proves that no one can predict the future with any degree of certainty. We can all imagine *things* and *events* taking place, but we have little idea of what *equipment* will take us there.
Thre transporter: I read an article 10 years ago that stated “it would be faster to walk” than beam anywhere using today’s computers. This struck me as daft, as who will be using today’s computers 10 years from now? When even Data’s processing speed will very likely be outpaced in another 50 years by desktop computers the same way a Sidekick has more processing power than NASA had in ‘69. To say the transporter is fantasy is… fantasy in and of itself. Fusion power was first theorised in 1929. The last of the test reactors are under construction now, with the first prototype commercial reactor pencilled in for 2030. That’s 100 years of R&D until science can come up to our imagining. Yet, personal cellphones whose existence had not been conceived of before… well, Trek, probably, came into existence in less than 30 years.
There is no limit to Human ingenuity. I cannot wait to move to the Mars colony.
Fascinating. As to curves, two other words: Flying buttresses.
My thoughts on Trek into the Future: Trek and Andy’s designs, and all other’s Trek design extrapolations I’ve never had a problem with (quite the contrary actually), but for two words, with emphasis on the latter: science FICTION. Fiction is an imaginary (go look the word up, I be happy to wait…) story-telling method, first and foremost. ‘Nuff said right there. But wait, there’s more! Order now and you’ll get this shiny colander, and the knowledge that Trek is most assuredly NOT fantasy. Never was. Never will be. Me thinks some do not understand the delineation of the two genres, eh.
Now, as I believe AVAV (all views are valid, to me anywho), nephronial, you have your POV and I respect that, but, in my view, you are myopic in your perceptions. In your thrust to see perfect science in, and let’s be clear about what we are talking about here; fictional entertainment (don’t like Trek, I’d say stick with TDC), you forget, or are not aware of, the one thing that allows for all things to even be or exist in the first place: Imagination.
This is so much about self-fulfilling prophesy. Scientists in the collective consciousness of humankind rely on the visionaries (be they educated or even fanciful) for direction in science. For the very kernels of conception and ideas of where to go in the first place. Whether they know it or not. As with all of us, yours is a certain type, one of the 12 basic personality types in the world. IMO, there is no “right” or “wrong” type to be as diversity is what it takes to move the whole forward, IDIC. But, in my view, yours is the type that stood by and maintained that humans would never fly when the concept of flight was being actively pursued, and remained all the more stalwart digging their heals in even more the closer it came to being realized/obtained. Quite frankly, IMO, if your type had been in charge of the tribe, early humans would have never left the caves or went over the next ridge. Now please, I’m not bashing you for your position, I respect your views, as AVAV to me. It’s just that your personality type, to me, is the uber-practical, show-me, everything must be strictly based on precedent type. And while that is a necessary contributor to human evolution as well, it rarely plays the role of one who utilizes humankind’s most important tool, ever; again; Imagination.
I speak frankly as I see you yourself do. However, I also am aware that often those with the loudest voices have the thinnest skins. I hope this is not the case. I’m a “shoot-from-the-hip” type o’ guy, and can take it as well as I give it. As I pretty much have no ego to bruise, I wouldn’t have it any other way actually. I would hope you share that same feeling of a secure sense of self, and understand the respectful and frank spirit in which I am speaking.
Anywho, Einstein knew the skinny on it all when he said:
All meaningful and lasting change starts first in your imagination and then works its way out. Imagination is more important than knowledge.
E had a great brain balance goin’ on. As a life-long student of the Tao, I try my best to follow his balanced example. In all things to do with thinking, and life in general.
Thus, in my experience and view, contrary to exclusive left brain thinking types, science does not rule the roost of what we see around us. Quite the contrary; it plays second fiddle to the visionary, eh.
So Andy, and all you guys, thanks for all the entertainment and inspiration, and visions and exemplarily examples of humankind indeed using its greatest asset and tool. I may not always have said, “Oh, that’s the exact way I’d have done it” but for the most part, I’ve been on-board with your guys’ take on stuff. And as I am a form (must) follow function guy myself, I dig and appreciate the direction you guys have gone in. And will eventually take us, as a race of beings.
And Doug, as always, thanks for the program direction.
And as I’m a fan of advanced use of vernacular (What? Aooooooh, I’m a pedestrian! Nyuk nyck nyuk…) /vocabulary, for this entry: genuflect, wins the day, eh.
PLL,
deg
Oh, and that was a great take on the function of aztec panels Andy. I’d never thought of them in that regard before. Makes perfect sense to me now.
PLL,
deg